Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Tuning USA: Meeting the Challenges of US Higher Education

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Tuning USA: Meeting the Challenges of US Higher Education"— Presentation transcript:

1 Tuning USA: Meeting the Challenges of US Higher Education
John H. Yopp, PhD Strategic Partnerships, Tuning USA David W. Marshall, PhD Associate Director, Tuning USA

2 Goals of the Presentation
Describe the Origin, Nature, and Goals of the Tuning Process in the U.S.: Tuning USA, Initiated and Co-Funded (with the Hewlett Foundation) by the Lumina Foundation Through a Comparison with the Tuning Educational Structures in Europe Project that started Tuning Worldwide Discuss How the Unique Features of U.S. Higher Education Challenge the Tuning USA Process Show How These Challenges are Being Addressed and the Role of the Institute for Evidence-Based Change (IEBC) in the Process Provide a Progress Report on Tuning USA from its Origins in to its Current State and Its Relationship to Lumina’s Degree Qualifications Profile

3 The Origins of Tuning USA1a

4 Tuning USA, Like Other Tuning Processes Worldwide, Had Its Origins in Europe (1999) in a Project Called “Tuning Educational Structures in Europe”1,1a

5 The Tuning Project in Europe, Unlike Tuning USA and Tuning in Other Regions of the World, was Initiated (September 1999) Almost Simultaneously, and in Parallel, Within the Strong Supportive Environments of the Two Major European Reform Initiatives: Bologna Process (June 1999) and the Lisbon Agenda (March 2000) 2,3 These Two European Reform Initiatives Contain Philosophical, Educational, and Societal Elements that Strongly Influenced those Driving Similar Goals for Tuning USA

6 THE BOLOGNA PROCESS The Bologna Process Evolved from the Bologna Declaration Signed in Bologna, Italy by Ministers of Higher Education From 29 European Countries Following the Recognition of the Need to Create a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by Currently, 47 European Countries are signatories to the Initiative.4,5 The EHEA was Established as the Overarching Reform Goal of the Bologna Process to Address the Lack of Comparability and Compatibility of Degrees Granted by the Very Diverse Higher Education Systems of Nations of the European Union (EU) and the General Lack of Relevance of Degrees for the Changing Needs of European Labor Markets and Society as a Whole.4,5,6

7 A Key Goal of Degree Reform Required a Common Definition of a Degree (Qualification) to achieve comparability (but not Standardization) Across European Higher Education Systems. A Tripartite Structure Based Upon a Common Framework of Reference for a First Bachelor-type, a Second Master-type, and a Third Doctoral- type Level of Qualification (Degrees).2 The Other Key Goals Included Linking Award of Qualifications (Degrees) to Systems for the Accumulation and Transfer of Credits Compatible with the Established European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and the Creation of Quality Assurance Systems Whose National Features Possessed Compatibility and Articulation within the Entire EHEA.4,5,6a

8 Critical to the Success of the Bologna Process Was That:
It Involved the Effective Participation of representatives from the Stakeholders in Higher Education Reform: Higher Education Institutions, Students, Faculty, Administrators, Employers and Quality Assurance Agencies Within the European Commission, Council of Europe and UNESCO-CEPES.2,6 It Articulated Early in Its Formation a Necessary Respect For the Autonomy of Europe's Higher Education Institutions and Cultural Distinctiveness of the Higher Education Systems In Bologna Signatory Countries.2,5

9 In March 2010 the Ministers of All 47 Participating European Countries and the Educational and Other Consultative Organizations Met in Budapest and Vienna to Officially Launch the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).5 The Goals Are, as they were in its Inception, to: “Facilitate Mobility of Students, Graduates, and Higher Education Staff Throughout the EHEA; Prepare Students for their Future Careers and for Life as Active Citizens in Democratic Societies, and Support their Personal Development; Offer Broad Access to High-Quality Education, Based on Democratic Principles and Academic Freedom.”5

10 The Lisbon Agenda (Strategy)7
The European Council Met in Special Session on March 23-24, 2000 in Lisbon to Formulate a Strategic Goal for the European Union that would “Strengthen Employment, Economic Reform, and Social Cohesion as Part of the Knowledge-Based Economy”. The Lisbon Strategy was Focused on: “preparing the transition to a knowledge-based economy and society by better policies for the information society and R&D, as well as stepping up the process of structural reform for competiveness and innovation and by completing the internal market; modernizing the European Social Model, investing in people and combating social exclusion; and sustaining the healthy economic outlook and favorable growth prospects by applying an appropriate macro-economic policy mix”. 7

11 Modification of the Lisbon Strategy by the European Council in 20057a
The Council modified the original Lisbon Strategy (Agenda) to focus mainly on growth creation and jobs. The overall objectives were defined as: “delivering stronger, lasting growth and creating more and better jobs in order to unlock the resources needed to meet Europe’s wider economic, social, and environmental ambitions, thus making Europe a more attractive place to invest and work while improving knowledge and innovation for growth in Europe.” 7a Economic modernization was seen to be the key “to increased growth and jobs, as well as to maintain Europe’s unique social model in the face of increasingly global markets, technological change, environmental concerns, and demographic changes.” 7a

12 The Elements of the Original Tuning Process that Began in Europe
Tuning Educational Structures in Europe (Tuning Europe)[September 1999] was the name of a project and process “that was designed and implemented ‘by and for universities’ and led to the development (in phases) of an operational methodology for the design of degree programmes in specific thematic areas within the framework of the emerging common education space in Europe” (i.e. The EHEA).2 “It became known as the universities’ response to the Bologna Challenges put to them by their Governments.” 2 It was recognized from the beginning of the Bologna Process that to achieve its overarching objectives (see earlier slide) especially as the fundamental locus of reform (i.e. the universities, their faculty, and their programs) that there had to be a focus on qualifications (degrees). This meant achieving an understanding of what elements constituted a qualification (degree).3

13 Five educational bodies at the Ministerial European Union and University levels were engaged in this task: (1) The Ministers of Higher Education through their declarations from biennial meetings ( )during The Bologna Process; (2) The Joint Quality Initiative Group within the Bologna Process; (3) The European University Association (EAU) that issued “Trends” reports on the progress of Bologna-related reforms before each Ministerial meeting; (4) The Council of Europe-Higher Education; and (5) The Tuning Educational Structures in Europe Project.3 The Ministers, in their Communique’ following the Berlin meeting (2003), and in response to input from the other influencing groups, stated: “ Ministers encourage the member States to elaborate a Framework of comparable and compatible qualifications for their higher education systems (re-affirming the Bologna Declaration goal), which should seek to describe qualifications in terms of workload, level, learning outcomes, competencies, and profile”. Learning outcomes were to be the “dominant characteristic of the Bologna-degrees”. 3

14 The European Tuning Project provided this very first definition of the new Bologna Degree (2003): “Qualification awarded by a higher education institution after successful completion of a prescribed programme of study. In a credit accumulation system, the programme is completed through the accumulation of a specified number of credits awarded for the achievement of a specific set of learning outcomes.”3 The determination of the essential constituent elements of the degree by the Tuning Process required five different lines of investigation: (1)Generic competences; (2) Subject-specific competences; (3) European credits; (4) Approaches to Teaching, Learning, and Assessment; and (5) Program Quality. These investigative studies led to the first definition of European Tuning Degree components: (1) Profile; (2) Learning Outcomes and Competences (generic and subject-specific); (3) Workload; (4) Levels of Qualifications; (5) Teaching/Learning and Assessment Methodologies; and (6) Program Quality. 3

15 These components were to become essential parts of the description of disciplinary degrees at all three degree (qualification) levels known as the Degree Profile. 3 Attention to the need to preserve the cultural diversity of the national higher education systems and their qualifications was a critical recognition from the start of the Bologna Process and Tuning in Europe. It was reinforced by the continuing Ministerial Communiques’. As has been stated “The tension between the identification of the common and the richness of the diverse runs in each of the documents of the Tuning Process”. 3

16 The Evolution of Tuning European Structures (i.e. Tuning Europe) 2,3
Initial Tuning Project (Tuning Europe) that began in 1999: Defined Common language and methodology for updating or creating a degree program (grass roots level). The approach was student-centered and defined average student workload measured in ECTS credits. The objective of degree programs was defined as each learner achieves well-defined learning outcomes at the end of the educational process, through which the learner acquires competences important for future life, both professional and personal. 2 Learning Outcomes, at both degree and course levels are defined by the subject area faculty through large multinational consensus from dialogue/debate and the other stakeholders (student, employers, alumni, etc.). 2 Through Subject Area Groups (SAGs), in concert with Thematic Network Projects (TNPs) of the Socrates Program, “Tuning Reference Points (both subject specific and generic student learning outcomes) were defined for nine subject areas (Business, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Education Sciences, European Studies, History, Mathematics, Nursing, and Physics). These were provided for European educators in nine Tuning Brochures.2

17 The European Commission in 2002 recommended that the approximately 35 Socrates TNPs Adopt Tuning in their own projects. This resulted in “Tuning Reference Points” and Brochures in 24 more subject areas.2 This collaboration, in turn, led to the creation of two European Tuning Information and Counseling Centers and 38 national Tuning Information Points (TIPs). 2 Tuning Europe entered into a partnership (2005) with The European Organizations responsible for the recognition of academic and professional degrees (qualifications) in the European Commission and Council of Europe/UNESCO. These partners, the European Network of Information Centres (ENIC) and National Academic Recognition and Information Centres (NARICS), in order to promote a process of objective descriptions of the Degree Profile, created a project called Competences in Recognition and Education. Its phase 2 had the acronym CORe2.2,8a

18 Competences in Education and Recognition Project (CoRe)8a
A Tuning Guide to Formulating Degree Programme Profiles Including Programme Competences and Programme Outcomes Jenneke Lokhoff and Bas Wegewijs (Nuffic) Katja Durkin (UK NARIC) Robert Wagenaar, Julia Gonzlez, Ann Katherine Isaacs, Luigi F. Dona dalle Rose and Mary Gobbi (TUNIING) Editors Bilbao, Groningen and The Hague, 2010

19 The Goal of the Bologna Process to Increase Student and Graduate Mobility Across the Borders of the Countries Within the European Higher Education Area Requires More than a Definition of the “Bologna Degree” and Creation of Degree Profiles from Tuning.2,3 Frameworks of Common Reference Points for Learning Outcomes and Competences at the National and European Levels were found to be Necessary.

20 The Qualifications Frameworks6,8
As the Bologna Process and Tuning Europe progressed with the creation of the Bologna Three Cycle Qualifications (bachelor-type, master-type, and doctoral type degrees) and an understanding of the nature of degrees at all levels through Tuning, the Ministers of Higher Education in the participating countries (2003, Berlin) requested that each country develop a National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) and an overarching European Qualification Framework (EQF). For the 3-cycle ‘Bologna Degrees” this first framework was termed the Bologna Framework, developed by a working group appointed by, and reporting to, the Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG). The Ministerial Conference in Bergen (2005) adopted this Framework. 6 National Qualifications Frameworks must include the broad consensual sets of learning outcomes for all educational qualifications of each country. Learning outcomes, or what students are expected to know, understand, and be able to do on the basis of a given qualification. Their definition is a result of collaboration within a broad consultation process involving all of the previously mentioned stakeholders. 6,8

21 Once the national qualifications have been developed, they must be tested and certified to demonstrate that they are consistent with the EQF. The Bologna Process has published a 10-Step Guide for Developing National Qualifications Frameworks. 6 Important among these 10 steps are three that are relevant to the forthcoming discussion of Tuning USA: “Approval according to national tradition by Minister/Government/Legislation; Implementation at the institutional/programme level; reformulation of individual study programmes to learning outcomes-based approach; and Self-certification of compatibility with the EHEA Framework, (i.e. EQF) including alignment to the Bologna cycles, etc” 6

22 The rationale for the Bologna Framework, according to the Official Bologna website6 is to provide a mechanism to relate the different national qualifications frameworks to each other so as to enable: (a) “International transparency – this is at the heart of the Bologna process and while devices, such as the Diploma Supplement, have a role to play in this objective, it is difficult to ensure that qualifications can be easily read and compared across borders without a simplifying architecture for mutual understanding. (b) International recognition of qualifications – this will be assisted through a framework, which provides a common understanding of the outcomes represented by qualifications for the purposes of employment and access to continuing education. (c) International mobility of learners and graduates – this depends on the recognition of their prior learning and qualifications gained. Learners can ultimately have greater confidence that the outcomes of study abroad will contribute to the qualification sought in their home country. A framework will also be of particular help in supporting the development and recognition of joint degrees from more than one country.” 6

23 The first, second, and third cycles (bachelor degree-type, master-degree-type, and doctoral degree-type respectively“)of the Bologna Process are the key qualifications in the overarching Bologna Framework. These degrees (cycles) are referenced to a set of descriptors, called the “Dublin descriptors” developed jointly by the Bologna stakeholders across Europe (Working Group on Qualifications Framework, 2005). “They are broad and general in nature to both a wide range of disciplines and degree profiles and the national variations in how qualifications (degrees) have been developed and specified.” 6 A process was established that would require all National Qualifications Frameworks to be compatible with the Bologna Framework. This process includes a detailed series of procedures and criteria, “that includes the designation of competent bodies responsible for the maintenance of the Framework by the national ministry with the responsibility for higher education, a clear and demonstrable link between the qualifications in the national framework and the cycle descriptors of the Bologna Framework. The existence of national quality assurance systems consistent “with the communiqués agreed upon by the ministers in the Bologna Process. 6

24 There is sometimes confusion among educators in other countries outside of Europe regarding the overarching Bologna Framework and the second overarching Framework called the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF) also called for by the Ministers. 6 The EQF is a much broader Framework designed to incorporate all education and training awards in Europe, including prominently, the 3- cycle degrees of the Bologna Process. This Framework resulted from recommendations coming out of an April 2008 meeting of the European Parliament and European Council. From the official Bologna Communications the rationale and purposes are described: “The EQF aims to establish a common reference framework as a translation device between different qualification systems and their levels. This framework comprises general, higher and vocational education and training, and should lead to better transparency, comparability and portability of citizens’ qualifications (e.g. diplomas, certificates etc.)

25 The EQF recommends that each level of qualification should, in principle, be attainable by way of a variety of educational and career paths. This should foster lifelong learning and increase the employability, mobility and social integration of workers and learners. The recommendation should also facilitate building bridges between formal, non-formal and informal learning. The EQF neither replaces nor defines national qualification systems nor  qualifications. It does not describe any particular qualifications or individual competences, but describes the eight EQF levels via descriptors for the three categories “knowledge”, “skills” and “competences”.9 Note the intent in encouraging lifelong learning as a critical need for the EHEA. The intent of the European Council that all participating countries will align their national Frameworks of qualifications with the EQF by This is still a work in progress.6,8,9

26 An excellent example of the relationship of the various qualifications, awards, certificates, etc. in the 8-level EQF is provided by the Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI). This is the National Coordination Point for the EQF. 2 Note that vocational education qualification are included.10 EQF Level EHEA Framework (Bologna) National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) Level NFQ Major Award-Types EQF Level 1 NFQ Level 1 Level 1 Certificate NFQ Level 2 Level 2 Certificate EQF Level 2 NFQ Level 3 Level 3 Certificate; Junior Certificate EQF Level 3 NFQ Level 4 Level 4 Certificate; Leaving Certificate EQF Level 4 NFQ Level 5 Level 5 Certificate; Leaving Certificate EQF Level 5 Short Cycle within First Cycle NFQ Level 6 Advanced Certificate (FET award); Higher Certificate (HET award) EQF Level 6 First Cycle NFQ Level 7 Ordinary Bachelor Degree NFQ Level 8 Honours Bachelor Degree; Higher Diploma EQF Level 7 Second Cycle NFQ Level 9 Masters Degree; Post-Graduate Diploma EQF Level 8 Third Cycle NFQ Level 10 Doctoral Degree; Higher Doctorate

27 The next phase in Tuning Europe began in 2008 in response to the establishment of National and European Qualifications Frameworks called for by the European Ministers of the Bologna Progress in their communique of the Berlin (2003) and Bergen Conferences (2005).2,3 This response to the now existing Bologna National and European Qualifications Frameworks was for Tuning Europe to develop Sectorial Qualifications Frameworks (SQF).2

28 Five Sectors were identified: Natural Science, Health Sciences, Humanities and Arts, Social Sciences, and Sciences and Technology. For each broad sector the SQF consisted of faculty-identified Tuning Reference Points. Two SQF projects were funded: Humanities and Fine Arts (HUMART) and Social Sciences. They resulted in the identification of 8 new Tuning Reference Points. In the Social Science SQF, these were in International Relations2, Law, Psychology and Social Science. For the HUMART SQF these were in Art, History, Literary Studies, Linguistics, and Theology/Religious Studies.2 Tuning Europe has also partnered with the Organization for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) on the development of a global test of student achievement of students in Economics and Engineering. Tuning Reference Points were developed for these two disciplines.

29 To date this makes 43 subject areas for which Tuning Reference Points have been produced. In addition, 31 generic competences have been identified by Tuning Europe.2 The global test project, “Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes” (AHELO) is still in its validation stages and has generated concern in some quarters. 2 Tuning Europe is now at the stage of the Tuning Academy, announced in and launched in The Academy has, in turn, launched two new initiatives that have recently taken form: (1) the Tuning Journal in Higher Education with the twin goals of creating continuing generations of new Turning individuals and dissemination the outcomes of Tuning; and (2) the meta-profile concept and its attendant process. 2

30 As discussed in two recent publications 2,3 in the new Tuning journal, the Meta Profile:
“makes explicit the relationship and hierarchy among competences in a given subject area (i.e. discipline); the earlier lists of generic and subject-specific competences are merged into a reasoned structure of competences;” 2 “includes innovative competences as a source of inspiration for concrete programme re-planning in the given subject area;” 2 Facilitates and enriches “the dialogue between the European Tuning Community and Tuning processes elsewhere in the world, notably Latin America, Russia, and Africa, where the coverage of subject areas tends to be similar to European ones; 2

31 is built, by subject area, at the level of the region and its participating countries (e.g. Europe, Latin America, and Africa) “jointly built, owned, and later validated at regional level. There is normally a further level of comparison with other world regions and eventually at global level. However, this way of reaching the global level implies that it is again (as everything in Tuning) a bottom-up approach” (i.e. local level-centered); 3 finally, serves to greatly facilitate joint and double degrees and international student exchanges. 3

32 Why Tuning USA?

33 The Tuning Educational Structures in Europe Project gained the attention and earned the respect of a growing number of U.S. educators, policy experts, major educational associations, and the Lumina Foundation.1,1a This has been facilitated by an increasing number of presentations by U.S. and European educators working on the Bologna Process to the annual conferences of the major international education associations in the U.S. (e.g. NAFSA, AIEA, CGS, AACRAO) since ,1a Global education is borderless and the U.S. is a global player.

34 The Tuning Europe Process associated with, and serving, the 49 Bologna signatory countries of Europe (from 2005) has now spread to many other regions of the world2,3,11: Tuning Latin America (in 2005) initially with 12 disciplines, more than 180 universities, and 18 countries, now in second expanded phase (2011 to present) Tuning Russia (in 2011 to present) Tuning Africa (in 2011 to present) began with 5 disciplines in 5 regions Pilot in Australia -stared Pilot in China – started Each Tuning project utilized similar processes but with different but related goals (e.g. Europe-cross border mobility and comparability of degrees; Latin America, institutional cooperation).

35 Pilot project: TUNING USA,
The Lumina Foundation saw “Tuning” as a major opportunity to support its “Big Goal” of “increasing the percentage of Americans with high quality two or four-year college degrees and credentials from 39% of the population to 60% by 2025, an increase of 23 million graduates above current rates.” Lumina established and funded the first U.S. Tuning.1a,12,13 Pilot project: TUNING USA, co-funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.14

36 “Tuning USA: Lumina Foundation launches faculty-led process that will involve students and employers in linking college degrees to workforce relevance and students’ mastery of agreed-upon learning objectives.” April – News Release, Lumina Foundation

37 “What the United States lacks is a comprehensive approach to defining learning outcomes representative of degrees in specific disciplines across different degree levels. Lumina wants to determine whether Tuning offers a potential approach for the U.S. to better define higher education learning outcomes on a larger scale.” Cliff Adelman13

38 The Tuning USA Pilot Program Contributes to six key benefits:14
“Facilitating student success and retention, especially among students from underserved groups, by creating clear expectations for, and pathways to, degree completion; Simplifying the process for students transferring credits between institutions; Emphasizing lifelong learning and important but often undervalued transferable skills; Aligning the roles of higher education institutions; Increasing higher education’s responsiveness to changes in knowledge and its application; Ensuring that the knowledge and applied skills associated with coursework align with civic, societal, and workforce needs.”

39 Tuning USA’s Principal Advisors14
Dr. Tim Birtwistle, a Bologna expert and emeritus professor at Leeds, Metropolitan University in the United Kingdom Dr. Clifford Adleman, senior associate, Institute for Higher Education Policy Dr. William Evenson, an emeritus physics professor, form university administrator and consultant to the Utah State Board of Regents Dr. Robert Wagenaar, a professor at the University of Groningen in The Netherlands, and co-coordinator of the projects Tuning Educational Structures in Europe, Tuning South-East and Eastern Europe, Tuning Latin America, Tuning Russia, and Tuning Georgia.

40 Tuning USA’s Operational Partner: the Institute for Evidence-Based Change (IEBC).1a,14
Serves as the primary consulting group for states and associations that initiate the Tuning USA initiative; Serves as a expert staff resource, guide, problem-solver, and advisor through the multi-stage Tuning process, from concept paper to implementation; Serves as a collaborator with the IHE-appointed Faculty Tuning Working groups, the state higher education governing boards, and other stakeholders to continually improve the Tuning USA process; Is charged by Lumina and the Tuning USA Advisory Board to expand the initiative nationally; Works with U.S. faculty consultant experts on the Tuning European Structures and Bologna Process and their differences from Tuning USA; and Performs analyses and evaluative instruments to assess the success of Tuning USA Projects in achieving the project goals.

41 Tuning USA’s Tuning Process “Tuning American Higher Education: The Process”


43 Figure 1: The base structure of a Tuning Initiative
Define Discipline Core Map Career Pathways Consult Stakeholders Hone Implement Locally Figure 1: The base structure of a Tuning Initiative Draft general degree profile Identify core concepts Draft competency statements Draft measurable student learning outcomes Research student career destinations Develop career pathways map Identify stakeholders Draft survey instruments or focus group protocols Gather stakeholder input Review stakeholder feedback Review discipline core in light of feedback Identify departmental assets/priorities/missions Emphasize departmental distinctiveness Write degree specifications for each degree level

44 The Outcomes of “Tuning European Structures” and “Tuning USA”: Degree Profiles and Degree Specifications, Respectively1a,14

45 Components of the Degree Profile in Europe8a
Title Field: Full name of the degree (qualification) in original language (and English translation) Full name of the programme offered by the institution Type of degree (cycle) and length; name of awarding institution(s); accreditation organization(s) Purpose: General statement about the degree program (2 sentences) Characteristics: Main subject areas/disciplines of the degree programme; orientation (research, practical, professional, applied, etc.); distinctive features (that distinguish it from other similar degree programmes)

46 Employability and Further Education: Employment opportunities (3 sentences); further studies (opportunities for access to further studies (e.g. Master programmes) Education Style: Main teaching and learning strategies and methods Programme Competences: List of generic and specific programme competences Complete List of Programme Learning Outcomes: All learning outcomes up to total of 20.

47 Degree Specification Template From Tuning USA14
Institution Name & Department Degree Name Purpose This field can be used to provide a succinct statement of a department’s philosophy as it relates to the specific degree level. The field might begin with a more general statement about the nature and purpose of the degree. Characteristics This field can highlight the distinctive features of the degree track, including disciplines and featured subject areas, general and specific focuses, etc. Career Pathways This field identifies possible destinations of the degree program’s graduates. Education Style This field identifies the department’s particular learning/ teaching approaches, such as lectures, small seminars, and labs, and describe the assessment methods used by the department, such as discursive tests, analytical papers, culminating research projects, and comprehensive exams. Degree Specification Template From Tuning USA14 Program Competencies & Outcomes This field lists the program-level learning outcomes, organized by competency area, that were developed by the Tuning work group. It should also include additional competencies and their relevant learning outcomes in addition to those developed by the Tuning work group.

48 Lumina Foundation’s Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP)15
The second version, DQP 2.0, enhances the first iteration, launched in January by incorporating the input of almost 400 colleges and universities that have used this guide. “In addition, four of the seven regional accrediting associations and constituency organizations such as The Council of Independent Colleges (CIC), The American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), and the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) have found the DQP a stimulus to creative and innovative projects.” 15 The DQP 2.0’s authors are: Dr. Cliff Adelman, senior associate at the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP); Dr. Peter Ewell, vice president at the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS); Dr. Paul Gaston, trustees professor at Kent State University and author of The Challenge of Bologna; and Dr. Carol Geary Schneider, president of the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) and Dr. Tim Birtwistle, UK Bologna Process Expert, Consultant at “Tuning USA,” and Professor Emeritus, Leeds Metropolitan University, also has provided guidance and expertise .


50 The Essential Elements of the DQP 2.015
The fundamental elements of the DQP are the “succinct, active definition of what degree recipients know and are able to do at each degree level (associate, bachelor’s, and master’s)” regardless of field of study (discipline). The DQP “describes concretely what is meant by each of the degrees addressed.” “The DQP describes generic forms of student performance appropriate for each degree level through clear reference points that indicate the incremental, integrative, and cumulative nature of learning.” Clarity and consensus on these reference points is the goal and certainly not “standardization” of U.S. degrees. The reference points of the DQP are expressed as proficiencies (rather than competences) because the DQP learning outcomes are written using active verbs (e.g. “identifies”, “categorizes”, “prioritizes”, etc.) because such verbs describe what students actually do when they demonstrate proficiency through assignments (e.g. performances, projects, examinations, exhibits, etc.)

51 Proficiencies are organized in the DQP within Five broad categories:
“Specialized Knowledge. Beyond the vocabularies, theories, and skills of fields of study, this category addresses what students in any specialization should demonstrate with respect to the specialization. Broad and Integrative Knowledge. This category asks students at all degree levels covered in the DQP to consolidate learning from different broad fields of study — the humanities, arts, sciences, and social sciences — and to discover and explore concepts and questions that bridge these essential areas of learning. Intellectual Skills. Both traditional and non-traditional cognitive operations are included in these skills: analytic inquiry, use of information resources, engaging diverse perspectives, ethical reasoning, quantitative fluency, and communicative fluency. There appears throughout an emphasis on the capacity to make, engage, and interpret ideas and arguments from different points of reference (cultural, technological, political, etc.).

52 Applied and Collaborative Learning
Applied and Collaborative Learning. This element of the DQP emphasizes what students can do with what they know, demonstrated by innovation and fluency in addressing unscripted problems in scholarly inquiry, at work and in other settings outside the class- room. This category includes research and creative activities involving both individual and group effort. Civic and Global Learning. Recognizing higher education’s responsibilities both to democracy and to the global community, this fifth area of learning addresses the integration of knowledge and skills in applications that facilitate student engagement with and response to civic, social, environmental and economic challenges at local, national and global levels.”15

53 In Summary: The DQP 2.0 clearly and concisely outlines these five broad component areas of learning, the proficiencies basic to each area of learning, and their relationship to one another – for each of the three degree levels – associate, bachelor's , and master’s. 15

54 Relationship of the Tuning USA Process to the Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP) 1,15
The relationship of Tuning Europe to the National, Bologna, and European Qualifications Frameworks has been described previously. This relationship is highly integrative with the Higher Ministerial requirement of alignment of the learning outcomes and competences in the product of Tuning, i.e. the Degree Profile, with the corresponding broad and generic learning outcomes and competences of the Frameworks. No such alignment is formally and purposely performed by U.S. higher educational institutions during the Tuning Process, although some may choose to do so. There are projects in process currently to explore such possible integrative use (e.g. with the National Communications Association).

55 However, there are recognized relationships other than a direct linkage of the two processes that may come into play. These include: “The DQP provides an architectural profile for three levels of higher education degrees by spelling out five areas of learning and proficiencies associated with them regardless of field of study.” 15 In fact that “learning takes place most often through courses representing subjects or fields of study, and faculty members (in those fields) typically evaluate student learning outcomes and proficiencies according to the standards of these specific fields.” 15 Tuning Work Groups are constituted of faculty from these specific fields (disciplines).

56 “Therefore, DQP proficiency statements assume a context of academic fields”. This is particularly the case within the “Specialized Knowledge” category of the DQP. “Tuning, and other field specific efforts describe the concepts, knowledge areas, methods, and accomplishments basic to particular fields of study.” 15 Thus, the faculty work groups in Tuning USA projects for specific fields of study develop reference points that describe a pathway to the student’s credential in those fields while using the markers for each credential in the DQP. The “Tuning faculty” reach consensus on learning outcomes and proficiencies in these fields of study through a integrated multi-step process involving consultations with faculty outside the field, employers, students, and alumni. 15

57 “Tuning and the DQP are, in effect, partners in the same effort to clarify and benchmark what students should know and be able to do for both degrees in general for all levels and these degrees in specific disciplines (fields of study).” 15 The DQP, in turn, provides orientation points, for the specific disciplines during The Tuning Process as well as a template for a type of “gap analysis” to be contain that the learning outcomes and proficiencies of the Degree Specification outcome of the Tuning process encompass the Five broad categories of knowledge and learning of the DQP. These Functions of the DQP are similar in concept to those of the European Qualifications Framework described earlier. U.S. specialized accreditation and licensure bodies established such expectations for many of these fields of study, especially in the professional areas. This is applicable and relevant to both Tuning and the DQP.

58 Challenges to Tuning USA as a Function of Unique Characteristics of U
Challenges to Tuning USA as a Function of Unique Characteristics of U.S. Higher Education1a,2,14

59 Challenges to Tuning USA Due to the Unique Nature of the Higher Education System in the U.S.A.
Tuning Europe is associated with the Bologna Process and has the endorsement and support of the Ministers of Higher Education in the 49 nations that are “Bologna” signatories5, and the stakeholders in The Lisbon Agenda. The U.S. has no Ministry of Higher Education and Tuning USA was launched and funded by non-governmental foundations, Lumina and Hewlett. Consequently, a major challenge for the U.S. Tuning initiative, which is accomplished institution by institution, state by state, or association by association, is financial sustainability. A key component of the European Tuning process is the integration of workload as the dimension of time required by the student to achieve the learning outcomes specified in the degree profile. The time/workload component is tied to the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). This component does not exist in the Tuning USA process. Therefore, unless Tuning USA’s outcomes are incorporated within some academically sound competency-based educational system, tied to individual learner pace of achievement, their relationship to credits earned will continue to rely on the increasingly criticized Carnegie Credit Hour System. Research continues in this area.

60 In recent years, the European Tuning process has become specialized with respect to those involved in each of its stages and implementation. There are faculty that create the degree profiles (profile designers) and others that implement the into the programs. Yet another group may oversee and advise students on individualized learning paths. Currently, the responsibility for implementation of Tuning USA’s discipline core and degree specification lies disproportionally on the faculty in the Tuning work groups. This makes implementation a much greater challenge than in the European model. 2,3 Tuning Projects and Processes in Europe and other parts of the world start at the bachelor’s level. Tuning USA also works at the associate's level. The U.S. community college system- and the number of community college students transferring to four-year colleges- are large enough so that any inclusion of progressive learning outcomes in a discipline that does not include both levels is incomplete. 14

61 This includes the incorporation of the Community Colleges’ associate degree pathway to the job market or transfer to a four-year institution. It also necessitates the integration of the typical liberal education (General Education) component of the U.S. bachelor’s degree into the discipline core and degree specification. The European higher education systems are generally more focused on the majors without the need to tune an equivalent of the U.S. general education component. Therefore, Tuning in the U.S. system is not restricted to the majors. It must address the difficult challenge of integrating the expected proficiencies for general education into the discipline core of the tuned major. Tuning USA continues to define itself as a function of the input and contributions of the disciplinary faculty Tuning Work Groups but it must continue to adapt to the characteristics of the U.S. higher education, which is, in many ways, an evolving target.

62 Finally, Tuning USA is not currently associated with any specific project to link the learning, outcomes and proficiencies of the disciplinary degree specifications to a particular form of assessment. As presented earlier, 2 Tuning Europe is involved in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - led AHELO (Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes) project. The project is developing a global test to assess the achievements of students in Economics and Engineering. Tuning and the DQP in the U. S. provide the basis for faculty to assess student outcomes and proficiencies through a variety of assignments (e.g. portfolios, demonstrations, examinations, etc.) The DQP uses assignments as the principal vehicle for certifying its proficiencies This is facilitated through a close association with the non-profit educational consortium, the National Institute of Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) which monitors the use of the various forms of assignments used by U.S. IHEs.

63 Progress and Achievements in Tuning USA, 2009 – Present1a,14,16

64 Tuning Pilot in the US: 2009-20101a
Three pilot states Indiana Minnesota Utah Six initial disciplines History Biology Chemistry Physics Elementary Education Graphic Design The pilot states engaged in Tuning as a way of ensuring quality in student learning and changing the culture of American higher education to be more student centered. Explain how states are unique and different in how they coordinate Tuning thus effecting sustainability Utah is a governing board; Indiana and Minnesota are a coordinating boards When Tuning process is embedded in a larger SHEEO postsecondary agenda its sustainability is more likely

65 Tuning in Utah: 2009-Present1a
Tuning 2010 (finalized): - History - Physics Tuning 2011 (final drafts): - History (masters and secondary education) - Physics (masters and secondary education) Tuning 2012 (forthcoming): - General Education Mathematics - Elementary Education Common Core State Standards Choosing Tuning Disciplines: Complement and expand upon existing Tuning disciplines in the U.S. Have not been tuned previously in the U.S. Among the most popular majors and degree programs Programs at the two-year, four-year, and graduate levels Multiple, varied career/graduate paths Broad range of application of knowledge and developed skills

66 Tuning in Texas: 2010-Present1a
Tuning 2010 (finalized): Civil Engineering, Industrial Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering Tuning 2011 (final drafts): Chemical Engineering, Biomedical Engineering, Biology, Chemistry Tuning 2012: Mathematics, Business, Computer and Information Sciences, Management Information Systems With the help of faculty who comprised the 2010 Tuning Oversight Council for Engineering, Texas now has final Tuning packages and voluntary transfer compacts for Civil, Electrical, Industrial, and Mechanical Engineering. “Year Two” of Tuning Texas is in final draft form, including Tuning work on two additional engineering disciplines (Biomedical and Chemical Engineering) and two areas of science (Biology and Chemistry). “Year Three” of Tuning Texas began in February 2012 with the 2012 Tuning Oversight Council for Mathematics, Business, and Computer/Management Information Systems. “Year Four” of Tuning Texas will begin in 2013 and will include developing and using processes for ongoing assessment.

67 Tuning in Kentucky: 2010-20121a Tuning 2011 (finalized):
Elementary Education Business Tuning 2012 (final drafts): Biology Nursing Social Work

68 Tuning in Montana: 2013 - Present
Montana University System: Montana is tuning Business Administration across all colleges and universities in the state. The IEBC Team has met in two state-wide convening's (a kick-off meeting that introduced the concept to the state stakeholders and a working Tuning meeting in which faculty groups from across the state began the Tuning process) and they have so far developed a discipline core, competencies, draft outcomes. They have been meeting in local/regional groups to refine and develop competencies and outcomes. The IEBC Team is meeting with the state-wide faculty participants periodically to continue the work.

69 Regional Tuning in the US: 2011-20131a
Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC) Three state project Illinois Indiana Missouri Initial disciplines Marketing Psychology Why tune across state lines? Leverage faculty allegiance to the discipline as primary Identify the challenges involved in Tuning outside of a single state context Enable faculty to “compare notes” about policies and practices in their individual states Why Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri? Utilize pilot state experience (Indiana) Desire for contiguous states (along with Kentucky) Capture large metropolitan areas with movement of human capital across state lines (Chicago and St. Louis) Coordinating board states Why psychology and marketing? Have not been tuned previously in the U.S. Among the most popular majors and degree programs (and a “default” or “fall back” major for many) Programs at the two-year, four-year, and graduate levels (or so we thought) Multiple, varied career/graduate paths Broad range of application of knowledge and developed skills Psychology – among the disciplines most likely to lead to hostile questioning from family members as to what kind of job could possibly be secured with such a major

70 National Tuning in the US: 2012-20151a
American Historical Association (AHA) Group of six AHA members to coordinate the project Geographical breadth and range of institutions Two of six are members of AHA Teaching Division Convened for two days in January 2012 This national scale Tuning effort started with a core leadership group that developed a discipline core document. This document was revised by a larger group has been consulting with stakeholders, mapping the discipline core to local departmental outcomes, drafting degree specifications, and determining the wide variety of career pathways available to student with degrees in history. Identified and recruited 60 historians nationwide Convened for two days in June 2012 Reconvened in January 2013 to finish with Final report (June 2013) 120 historians responded to call for proposal; 60 historians were selected nationwide To facilitate and spread influence, geographical breadth and range of institutions Members of consortia to be included Include breadth of specializations (period and regions) Assume these 90 “will begin working by working within their institutions, and then take that experience to other members of such consortia or public university systems.” 60 meet at national convening Two days Day one: introduction to and training in techniques of Tuning Day two: draft first round of findings on core values, goals, assets of history education Day three: will be prepared & guided in forming of plan for tuning at their institutions Structured around workshops, punctuated by plenary sessions and meals Workshops comprise 15 members and member of leadership team Plenary by Lumina or IEBC on theory or practice Plenary by two specialists in outcomes assessment Create discussion space on AHA website for participants Moderated by rotation of AHA staff and Teaching Division staff Reconvene one year later Results of state-based projects will be aggregated, analyzed, and harmonized Include discussion of spreading ideas from group to larger profession through presentations Consortia Conferences Other venues Discussion of how to get other institutions to tune Publish results online and in AHA pamphlet Create centralized repository for resources Track attention to and impact of publications and repository Track opposition to tuning Devise ways of incorporating dissenters productively Offer workshop at AHA 2014

71 Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges: Emphasizing the Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP) portion of its dual focus, a small group of faculty from two community colleges meets monthly to create clearly articulated outcomes in Communication Studies, Sociology Early Childhood Education, English and Math. This project was begun in 2013. National Communications Association: NCA is conducting a three part quasi-experimental approach combining Tuning and DQP. Planning began in 2013 and first faculty led training/planning meetings began in January The IEBC Team is meeting with the whole Tuning faculty group in March. They have begun the process in local/regional meetings with their trained faculty leads.

72 References Yopp, J.H “The Transatlantic Jump of Tuning Educational Structures Europe Project to the Tuning USA Project and its Implications for Enhancing International Mobility”. In NAFSA 2011 Annual Conference & Expo “Innovation and Sustainability in International Education”, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, May 29-June 3, 2011. 1a Yopp, J.H., Marshall, D. W., O’Hara, A., Kalina, M “Tuning USA: Progress, Challenges Unique to the USA and Path Forward”. Presentation in Session 10:23. Assessing Student Learning Outcomes in Europe in the European Association for International Education. Dublin, Ireland, September 13, 2012. dalle Rose, L. F. D., & Haug, G. Programme Profiles and the Reform of Higher Education in Europe: The Role of Tuning Europe. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 203. González, J., & Yarosh, M. (2007). Building Degree Profiles. The Tuning Approach. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 10(2), 37. Secretariat, B. B. (2009, April). Bologna beyond Report on the development of the European Higher Education Area. In URL: pdf(Retrieved December 5, 2009). About The Bologna Process ond. vlaanderen. be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/about The Bologna Process (2007). The Official Bologna Process Website 6a. Bologna – An overview of the main elements. education-area/bologna-basics/Bologna-an-overview-of-the-main-elements.aspx

73 References Continued Presidential Conclusions. Lisbon European Council. 23 and 24 March 7.a European Commission, Community Research and Development Information Service The Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs. European Commission: European Qualifications Framework. 8a. Lokhoff, J. Wegewijs, B., Durkin, K. Wagenaar, R., Gonzalez, J. Isaacs, A.K., Dona dalle Rose, L.F., and Gobbi, M., eds A Tuning Guide to Formulating Degree Programme Profiles, Including Programme Competencies and Programme Learning Outcomes. Competences in Education and Recognition Project (CoRe2). Lifelong Learning, Education and Culture. D.G. Bilbao, Groningen, and the Hague. Published by the University of Deusto. and European Qualification Framework for Lifelong Learning. EQAVET. context/european-vet-initiatives/european-qualifications-framework.aspx Quality and Qualifications Ireland Overarching Frameworks. Adelman, C From Bologna to Indianapolis, and More than a Few Stops In Between. Presentation November 2, 2011 to Occupational Therapy Deans and Department Chairs.

74 References Continued Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) AAC&U statement on the Lumina Foundation for Education’s Proposed Degree Qualifications Profile. Approved, January 2011. FAQs on Bologna and Tuning. Tuning American Higher Education: The Process Institute for Evidence-Based Change (IEBC) for Lumina Foundation The Degree Qualifications Profile Draft - Adelman, C., Ewell, P., Gaston, P., & Schneider, C.G. For Lumina Foundation. Tuning USA: How Tuning is making a difference in the culture of higher education. A presentation to the 2012 SHEEO Higher Education Policy Conference: Collaborating Across Boundaries in Challenging Times, Chicago, (August 9, 2012). Institute for Evidence-Based Change.

75 THANK YOU For specific questions about this webinar, contact:
John Yopp David Marshall For general questions about Tuning USA, contact: Brad Phillips President/CEO IEBC THANK YOU

Download ppt "Tuning USA: Meeting the Challenges of US Higher Education"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google